GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member, Subcommittee on 

Interior and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, House of 

Representatives

February 2001 LAND 

MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEMS

BLM’s Actions to 

Improve Information 

Technology 

Management

GAO-01-282

Page 1 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of the Interior 24

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 27

Related GAO Products 28

Abbreviations

ALMRS Automated Land and Mineral Record System

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CIO chief information officer

CMM Capability Maturity Model

IOC Initial Operating Capability

IRM information resources management

IT information technology

ITIB Information Technology Investment Board

ITIM Information Technology Investment Management

NILS National Integrated Land System

NIRMC National Information Resources Management Center

OMB Office of Management and Budget

SEI Software Engineering Institute
Page 2 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements
Page 3 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Letr

February 27, 2001

The Honorable Joe Skeen

Chairman

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Interior

 and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

This report presents the status of actions taken by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to strengthen its information technology (IT) 

investment management and acquisition capabilities. The bureau has been 

taking these actions to address recommendations we made when we 

reported that the Automated Land and Mineral Record System (ALMRS) 

Initial Operating Capability (IOC)—the major software component of 

BLM’s ALMRS/Modernization—failed to meet BLM’s business needs and 

was not deployable.1

 We made the recommendations to help BLM reduce 

the risks that future IT efforts would fail.

At your request, we reviewed BLM’s actions to implement our 

recommendations and improve its management of IT. Accordingly, our 

objectives were to determine whether BLM (1) has adequately assessed 

ALMRS IOC and other alternatives to meet its business needs, (2) has 

adequately strengthened its investment management practices, (3) is using 

sound system acquisition processes, (4) has integrated its investment 

management and systems acquisition improvement projects and developed 

an overall plan and schedule for completing this integrated improvement 

work, and (5) is planning to undertake any sizable systems acquisition or 

development efforts before strengthening its information technology 

program. Our objectives, scope, and methodology are presented in 

appendix I. We performed our work from February 2000 through 

December 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government 

1

Land Management Systems: Major Software Development Does Not Meet BLM’s Business 

Needs (GAO/T-AIMD-99-102, March 4, 1999) and Land Management Systems: Status of 

BLM’s Actions to Improve Information Technology Management (GAO/AIMD-00-67, 

February 24, 2000).
Page 4 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from 

the Department of the Interior. The Acting Assistant Secretary for Lands 

and Minerals provided us with written comments that are discussed in the 

“Agency Comments” section and reprinted in appendix II.

Results in Brief Since 1999, BLM has been working to implement our recommendations to 

determine the usefulness of ALMRS IOC and assess and strengthen its IT 

investment management and acquisition capabilities. Although the bureau 

has not yet finished these efforts, it has begun to apply improved 

management strategies for selecting IT investments, develop processes and 

practices for controlling and evaluating investments, and build a more 

mature systems acquisition capability.

BLM performed a preliminary analysis of ALMRS IOC to determine 

whether all or part of the software could be used to meet the bureau’s 

business needs. As we reported last year, BLM’s chief information officer 

(CIO) plans to perform a final analysis of ALMRS IOC after the 

development of an enterprise architecture.2

 However, the enterprise 

architecture is not yet complete, and therefore the final analysis of ALMRS 

software has not yet been conducted.

BLM is continuing to address our recommendations to strengthen its 

investment management processes and practices and its systems 

acquisition capabilities. The bureau is developing an IT investment 

management program, an enterprise architecture, and IT acquisition 

practices to help avoid future problems and failures similar to ALMRS IOC. 

The bureau is also beginning to address our recommendation to integrate 

all these improvement projects. Senior BLM officials told us that, as a result 

of our follow-up work, the bureau plans additional corrective actions, 

including revising its IT capital asset plan, strategic information resources 

management (IRM) plan, IRM process improvement plan, and IT 

investment management process.

However, before completing and institutionalizing new investment control 

processes, the bureau has begun moving forward with an IT acquisition. As 

a result, BLM’s efforts may be subject to many of the same project 

2

An enterprise architecture is the explicit description of the current and desired 

relationships between business and management processes and information technology. 

BLM refers to its enterprise architecture as the bureau architecture.
Page 5 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

management and management oversight risks that adversely affected the 

ALMRS/Modernization. We are therefore recommending that BLM establish 

procedures to ensure that the acquisition project and associated risks are 

properly managed and controlled.

Background BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The 

bureau is responsible for approximately 264 million acres of public land in 

28 states and public resources, including rangelands, timber, minerals, 

watersheds, wildlife habitats, wilderness and recreation areas, and 

archeological and historical resources. It also manages the subsurface 

mineral resources underlying another 300 million acres of land 

administered by other government agencies or owned by private interests. 

The bureau has 189 offices that maintain over 1 billion paper documents, 

including land surveys and surveyor notes, records of land ownership, 

mining claims, and oil and gas leases. According to BLM, most of the paper 

documents are deteriorating and are becoming increasingly difficult to 

read.

In the mid-1980s BLM began planning to acquire a land and mineral case 

processing system to keep up with its increasing workload and automate 

its manual records and case processing activities. By 1993, BLM decided on 

the scope and functionality of the project, called the 

ALMRS/Modernization. The project consisted of three major components: 

the ALMRS IOC, a geographic information system,3

 and the modernization 

of BLM’s computer and telecommunications infrastructure and rehost of 

selected management and administrative systems. ALMRS IOC—the 

flagship of the ALMRS/Modernization—was to provide the capability to 

more efficiently record, maintain, and retrieve land description, ownership, 

and use information to support BLM, other federal programs, and 

interested parties.

3

A geographic information system is computer technology designed to assemble, store, 

manipulate, and display geographically referenced data, such as the location of a lake, oil 

well, or wildlife habitat.
Page 6 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Since 1995 we have issued several reports and made numerous 

recommendations to address the problems and risks that threatened the 

successful development and deployment of the ALMRS/Modernization.4

 In 

October 1998 an operational assessment test and evaluation showed that 

ALMRS IOC was not ready to be deployed because it did not meet BLM’s 

business needs. The bureau subsequently stopped the ALMRS project. At 

the time the project was terminated, BLM estimated that from 1983 through 

1998 it had obligated about $411 million for the ALMRS/Modernization 

project, of which over $67 million was spent to develop ALMRS IOC 

software.

In 1999, we testified on the long-standing project weaknesses at BLM that 

threatened the ALMRS/Modernization and increased the risks that future 

efforts would result in a similar outcome.5

 We recommended that BLM 

assess the usefulness of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives to meeting the 

bureau’s business needs, and strengthen its investment management 

processes and systems acquisition capabilities. In February 2000, we 

reported that BLM was in the early stages of addressing our 

recommendations, and we further recommended that BLM develop a plan 

to integrate all these corrective actions and establish a schedule for 

completing them.6

4

Land Management Systems: Progress and Risks in Developing BLM’s Land and Mineral 

Record System (GAO/AIMD-95-180, August 31, 1995), Land Management Systems: BLM 

Faces Risks in Completing the Automated Land and Mineral Record System

(GAO/AIMD-97-42, March 19, 1997), Land Management Systems: Information on BLM’s 

Automated Land and Mineral Record System Release 2 Project (GAO/AIMD-97-109R, June 6, 

1997), Land Management Systems: Actions Needed in Completing the Automated Land and 

Mineral Record System Development (GAO/AIMD-98-107, May 15, 1998), and Land 

Management Systems: Major Software Development Does Not Meet BLM’s Business Needs 

(GAO/AIMD-99-135, April 30, 1999).

5

Land Management Systems: Major Software Development Does Not Meet BLM’s Business 

Needs (GAO/T-AIMD-99-102, March 4, 1999).

6

Land Management Systems: Status of BLM’s Actions to Improve Information Technology 

Management (GAO/AIMD-00-67, February 24, 2000). 
Page 7 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Preliminary ALMRS 

IOC Analysis 

Completed; Final 

Analysis Is Still 

Planned

Because of the enormous investment made in ALMRS IOC and the failure 

of the software to meet BLM’s needs, we recommended that the Secretary 

of the Interior ensure that BLM thoroughly analyze the ALMRS IOC 

software to determine whether it could be cost beneficially modified to 

meet the bureau’s needs. We pointed out that this analysis should be part of 

an overall effort to identify and assess all alternatives, including 

(1) modifying the ALMRS IOC software, (2) modifying existing land and 

recordation systems, (3) acquiring commercial, off-the-shelf software, or 

(4) developing new systems. We also stated that the alternatives analysis 

should clearly identify the risks, costs, and benefits of each alternative and 

should be performed after BLM is assured that it has verified its current 

business requirements.

In February 2000, we reported that BLM had prepared a preliminary report 

on its technical and functional analysis of ALMRS IOC, and concluded that 

ALMRS IOC was not operationally ready for deployment because it did not 

meet the bureau’s business needs.7

 This conclusion was based on the 

determination that ALMRS IOC (1) was difficult to use and labor-intensive, 

(2) was poorly integrated into BLM’s business processes, (3) was too slow, 

and (4) would be difficult and costly to maintain and operate. The bureau 

stated that although some of these problems could be solved, ALMRS IOC 

could not be repaired without a major technical effort and significant costs. 

At that time, BLM’s CIO told us that the bureau planned to complete its 

analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives after it established the 

bureau architecture and its business needs were known. The CIO noted 

that establishing an architecture is a necessary precursor to completing the 

analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives because the architecture 

would document the bureau’s business processes and information needs. 

As part of its final analysis, BLM planned to determine whether parts of 

ALMRS IOC could be useful for future IT efforts.

BLM developed an initial version of the bureau architecture in early 2000. It 

has also used non-software portions of ALMRS IOC, such as system 

specifications and documentation, to support other, ongoing information 

systems efforts. BLM’s CIO told us that the bureau does not plan to 

complete a final analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives until it 

finishes additional work to complete the bureau architecture. The bureau 

expects to complete its work on the architecture by the end of 2003.

7

GAO/AIMD-00-67, February 24, 2000.
Page 8 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Corrective Actions to 

Strengthen BLM’s 

Investment 

Management Practices 

Continue

The absence of adequate investment management processes and practices 

at BLM was a significant factor contributing to the failure of ALMRS IOC. 

To reduce the risk that future IT efforts would fail and to help establish 

disciplined investment management as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act,8

we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior ensure that BLM assess 

and strengthen its investment management practices to help avoid future 

problems. Sound investment management practices include (1) developing 

a capital asset plan, (2) developing strategic plans, (3) establishing an 

investment management board, (4) developing and implementing 

investment selection, control, and evaluation processes, (5) assessing staff 

skills, and (6) developing an information technology architecture to help 

properly manage new and ongoing IT projects.

IT Capital Asset Planning Is 

Under Way, but Not Yet 

Finished

The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to use capital planning to guide 

the acquisition and management of IT, and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has issued guidance to assist agencies in developing a 

disciplined capital planning process.9

 OMB’s guidance describes the key 

elements of an agency capital asset plan, including a statement of the 

relevant agency strategic plans, an analysis of existing systems and planned 

acquisitions, a gap analysis that identifies the agency objectives that cannot 

be met with existing IT assets, and justification for new spending.

BLM approved an IT capital asset plan, dated October 25, 1999, which 

outlines capital planning procedures for major IT acquisitions. The plan 

specifies the relationship between BLM’s IT assets and the program 

performance goals identified in its strategic business plan. However, the 

plan is not yet complete, in that it does not include an analysis of the IT 

assets already owned by the agency and assets being acquired, an analysis 

of the gap between actual and planned performance, or justification for 

new acquisitions proposed for funding, as recommended by OMB guidance. 

According to BLM’s Deputy CIO, the bureau expects to revise and 

restructure its capital asset plan now that an initial version of the bureau 

8

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 seeks to maximize the return on investments in information 

systems by requiring agencies to institute sound capital investment decision-making. Under 

the act, agencies must design and implement a process for maximizing the value and 

assessing and managing the risks of IT acquisitions.

9

Office of Management and Budget, Capital Programming Guide, Version 1.0, Supplement to 

OMB Circular A-11, July 1997.
Page 9 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

architecture has been developed. The Deputy CIO added that BLM is 

planning to incorporate OMB’s recommended analyses and justifications in 

its revised plan. The analyses and justifications should help to guide the 

acquisition and management of BLM’s IT assets and investments. BLM 

expects to finish revising the capital asset plan by the end of fiscal 2001.

Improvements to BLM’s 

Strategic IRM Plan Are 

Under Way, but Not Yet 

Complete

The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to ensure that IT is acquired and 

information resources are managed in a manner consistent with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires 

agencies to develop and maintain a strategic IRM plan that integrates IT 

investment processes with their processes for making budget, financial, 

and program management decisions. OMB has issued guidance to assist 

agencies in developing strategic IRM plans that are consistent with the 

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.10

BLM is revising its 1997−2002 strategic IRM plan, dated March 12, 1998. Our 

review of a draft of BLM’s 2001−2005 strategic IRM plan showed that the 

draft plan includes a section on organizational effectiveness. The plan also 

shows how BLM’s IRM goals relate to, and support, bureauwide goals and 

objectives. However, the plan is not yet complete in that it does not 

describe how IRM activities will help accomplish BLM’s mission, nor does 

it ensure that IRM decisions are integrated with decisions on organizational 

planning, budget, procurement, financial management, human resources 

management, and programs, both of which are recommended by OMB in its 

strategic planning guidance. BLM’s Deputy CIO told us that the bureau is 

revising its draft strategic IRM plan now that an initial version of the bureau 

architecture has been developed. According the Deputy CIO, the revised 

strategic IRM plan will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001 and will 

include the information recommended by OMB. Inclusion of the 

information recommended by OMB should help ensure that BLM’s strategic 

IRM plan will support IT investment management at the bureau.

10Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information 

Resources, November 30, 2000.
Page 10 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Information Technology 

Investment Board Has Been 

Established and Its Role Is 

Evolving

The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to manage IT investments by 

using processes and information to ensure that IT projects are 

implemented at acceptable costs and within reasonable and expected time 

frames, and are contributing to tangible and observable improvements in 

mission performance. OMB’s and our joint guidance identifies attributes 

that are critical for achieving successful investment management practices, 

including senior management attention to those practices. 11 Senior 

managers should have the authority to make key business and funding 

decisions on IT projects and use a disciplined and structured management 

forum for making key IT investment decisions with the authority to 

approve, cancel, or delay projects, mitigate risks, and validate expected 

returns. This guidance also describes key phases that should be part of a 

mature IT investment management process that provides for the continual 

selection, control, and evaluation of information technology investments.

BLM has established an Information Technology Investment Board (ITIB) 

composed of senior-level program, IRM, and financial managers, with a 

charter that clearly defines the board’s roles, responsibilities, and 

functions. For example, the charter specifies that the board is responsible 

for decisions regarding the initiation, development, implementation, and 

evaluation of major IT investments. The charter also outlines the functions 

of the board, including (1) developing an information technology 

architecture, (2) selecting IT investments, (3) managing and controlling IT 

activities, and (4) evaluating IT investments after implementation. On 

August 24, 2000, BLM revised the ITIB charter to help further improve the 

bureau’s selection, control, and evaluation processes. The charter revisions 

included (1) adding project life-cycle costs as selection assessment criteria, 

(2) adding progress reports on key project milestones and expenditures as 

part of the ITIB’s management and control processes, and (3) plans to 

better align the schedule of ITIB meetings and activities with the bureau’s 

budget cycle.

Since its creation in 1998, BLM’s ITIB has approved 17 projects for funding 

based on criteria it established to select IT projects. These criteria include 

evaluating whether projects (1) support BLM’s core business functions, 

(2) address work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to 

11Evaluating Information Technology Investments: A Practical Guide, Version 1.0, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Information Policy and Technology Branch, Office of 

Management and Budget, November 1, 1995. This guide was prepared cooperatively by OMB 

and us.
Page 11 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

reduce cost and improve effectiveness, (3) demonstrate a projected return 

on investment that is equal to or better than alternative uses of available 

resources, (4) are consistent with the bureau architecture, and (5) include a 

risk reduction strategy.

While these actions represent improvements, BLM has not yet established 

criteria and processes to properly control and evaluate IT investments. For 

example, the ITIB reviews ongoing projects at major project milestones or 

when additional funding is needed, while our guidance recommends and 

best practices suggest that in the control phase, information should be 

continually collected, updated, and provided to decisionmakers so they can 

identify projects that are at risk and act early to mitigate those risks or 

terminate the project. The ITIB also has not yet developed criteria for the 

evaluation phase that would measure actual versus projected performance 

and identify benefits that were achieved by an IT investment. Without 

identifying control and evaluation criteria and implementing such 

processes, BLM does not yet have in place all the elements necessary to 

properly manage its IT investments. BLM’s CIO told us that the ITIB has 

worked to first establish and implement processes to select IT projects and 

establish selection criteria, including whether a project adequately 

supports the bureau’s architecture. Now that those processes and criteria 

are in place, the board is beginning to focus on establishing processes to 

control ongoing IT projects. For example, the bureau is currently 

developing a tracking system to help ensure that the ITIB can review and 

control approved projects. 

The ITIB also has not yet incorporated the bureau’s strategic planning, 

capital planning, or budget cycle as part of the project selection, control, or 

evaluation criteria. For example, the ITIB charter does not recognize the 

bureau’s strategic or annual performance plans as part of its selection, 

control, or evaluation processes. In addition, although the charter indicates 

that the ITIB will use BLM’s capital asset plan or strategic plan as guidance 

in identifying the bureau’s business needs, the charter focuses only on the 

bureau’s architecture to identify those needs. BLM’s CIO told us that the 

ITIB’s charge, as identified in the board’s charter, will be revised and 

updated as the bureau’s investment management processes mature. BLM 

plans to include strategic and capital planning criteria as part of its 

selection, control, and evaluation cycle, and also plans to coordinate the 

cycle as part of its budget planning process. 
Page 12 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Investment Management 

Processes Are Being 

Documented, but Efforts 

Are Not Yet Complete

BLM has drafted a document that is intended to describe the bureau’s IT 

investment management process and provide the bureau with consistent 

and documented policies and procedures for managing information 

technology investments. The draft document, dated November 28, 2000, 

describes roles and responsibilities for investment management, provides 

detailed, project-oriented policies and processes for each phase of the 

selection, control, and evaluation process, and provides guidance for 

developing a business case for an IT project.

The draft document focuses primarily on the management of individual 

projects. The document lacks policies and procedures for managing all of 

BLM’s IT systems and projects as a comprehensive portfolio that would 

help ensure that the bureau meets its goals and carries out its mission. For 

example, the document focuses on the requirements for managers, 

sponsors, and proponents of planned and ongoing projects to manage 

projects throughout the selection, control, and evaluation processes. It 

does not yet provide comprehensive and strategic policies and procedures 

for senior managers and decisionmakers that take into account the budget 

cycle, strategic goals and objectives, capital planning, and bureau 

architecture with BLM’s management of its IT investments. BLM’s CIO told 

us that the draft investment management document is evolving to describe 

a more comprehensive, portfolio-based approach to managing IT 

investments. The CIO said the bureau plans to identify its portfolio of 

investments and plans to begin more comprehensive reviews of those 

investments as part of the annual budget cycle.

BLM’s IRM Organization and 

Staffing Assessment Has 

Been Completed

The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agency CIOs to assess staff IRM knowledge 

and skills. BLM has assessed its IT staffing and skills needs and 

restructured its national IRM organization based on that assessment. BLM’s 

national IRM organization consists of its IRM headquarters in Washington, 

D.C., and National IRM Center (NIRMC) in Denver. In October 1999, BLM’s 

CIO tasked a team of field managers and technical, program, and personnel 

specialists with assessing NIRMC, including its staffing and skill levels, 

mission and functions, and organizational structure. The team issued its 

final report in January 2000. Subsequently, in April 2000, a team of field 

managers and IRM specialists completed an assessment of BLM’s 

headquarters-based IRM organization. Based on recommendations made 

by the assessment teams and validated by a BLM management team, the 

bureau made significant changes to its IRM organization. 
Page 13 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

According to the Director of BLM, implementing these recommendations 

has resulted in a new role for NIRMC, a reduction in force, and the 

reassignment of key IT functions to the headquarters IRM office. For 

example, before the reorganization, BLM’s systems operations, systems 

engineering, and IRM management functions were located at NIRMC. Now, 

NIRMC’s new role includes responsibilities for systems operations and 

systems engineering. The IRM management functions have been moved to 

BLM’s headquarters offices in Washington, D.C., and restructured to 

include an investment management group and a policy and records group. 

A systems coordination group was also created to ensure adherence with 

system life-cycle management principles. In addition, two key positions 

were added to BLM’s IRM organization—a lead information technology 

architect and a systems development manager. According to BLM’s CIO, 

the reorganization and new technical positions will better enable the IRM 

organization to meet the information technology needs of the bureau. 

BLM’s new organization took effect on July 2, 2000.

Work to Develop BLM’s 

Bureau Architecture 

Continues

The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agency CIOs to develop, maintain, and 

facilitate the implementation of a sound and integrated information 

technology architecture.12 The architecture should be an integrated 

framework for evolving or maintaining existing IT and acquiring new 

technology to achieve the agency’s strategic and IRM goals and better 

support its business needs. According to OMB, to develop an enterprise 

architecture, agencies should identify and document business processes,13

information flows and relationships, applications, data descriptions and 

relationships, and the agency’s technology infrastructure. In addition, OMB 

12An information technology architecture, also referred to as an enterprise architecture, 

provides a comprehensive blueprint that systematically details the breadth and depth of an 

organization’s mission-based mode of operation. An enterprise architecture provides details 

first in logical terms, such as defining business functions, providing high-level descriptions 

of information systems and their interrelationships, and specifying information flows; and 

second in technical terms such as specifying hardware, software, data, communications, 

security, and performance characteristics.

13Enterprise architectures should contain a business process component that describes the 

core business processes supporting the organization’s mission. The business process 

component of the architecture must be developed by senior program managers in 

conjunction with IT managers.
Page 14 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

recommends that agencies include a technical reference model14 and 

standards profile as part of an architecture.15

BLM has developed an initial bureau architecture, which contains guiding 

principles and descriptions of some of BLM processes, data, and 

applications, and six strategic initiatives to improve the architecture and 

support its future development. As part of this effort, BLM also developed 

the first volume of a technical reference model that contains principles and 

recommended best practices for selecting and deploying system and 

network hardware and software. In addition, the bureau has developed a 

plan to broaden and further develop the bureau architecture over the next 

3 years, because the architecture is not yet complete: It lacks a complete 

and accurate inventory of all of BLM’s application software, data, business 

processes, and network and system hardware and software. For example, 

major components of the initial bureau architecture are limited to the 13 

information systems that are managed by NIRMC.

BLM’s acting lead architect told us that BLM is planning to complete a 

comprehensive analysis that will extend and validate the scope of the 

current bureau architecture for software applications and for systems and 

network hardware and software in all state offices. In addition, many tasks 

that are essential to the development of an architecture have yet to be 

completed by BLM. For example, BLM has not yet finished the business 

process analyses, data architecture and standards, and systems and 

network hardware and software standards as recommended by OMB. 

BLM’s multiyear architecture plan includes these tasks, and shows that the 

bureau plans to complete them by the end of 2003.

14A technical reference model identifies and describes the information services used 

throughout the agency, such as database, communications, and intranet services.

15Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information 

Resources, November 30, 2000.
Page 15 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Corrective Actions to 

Strengthen Systems 

Acquisition Processes 

Are Continuing

As stated in our March 4, 1999, testimony, BLM did not have key 

management controls in place for the ALMRS IOC project to help ensure 

that the project would result in a system that would meet BLM’s business 

needs.16 Accordingly, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior 

ensure that BLM obtain an independent assessment of its systems 

acquisition capabilities and ensure that it use sound systems acquisition 

processes.

BLM subsequently obtained an independent, high-level assessment of its 

systems acquisition capabilities, based on the Software Engineering 

Institute’s (SEI) Software and Software Acquisition Capability Maturity 

Models (CMM)SM criteria.17 BLM’s software acquisition processes were 

found to be immature—level 1. According to SEI, the characteristics of a 

level 1 organization include (1) lack of a stable environment for developing 

and maintaining software, (2) overcommitment of staff and resources, and 

(3) abandonment of planned procedures when executing projects. 

Research by SEI has shown that defined and repeatable processes for 

managing software acquisition are critical to an organization’s ability to 

consistently deliver high-quality information systems on time and within 

budget. The critical management process areas that SEI deems necessary 

for an organization to reach CMM level 218 include (1) software acquisition 

planning, (2) solicitation, (3) requirements development and management, 

(4) project management, (5) contract tracking and oversight, 

(6) evaluation, and (7) transition to support.

BLM is taking action to address weaknesses in its systems acquisition 

processes. For example, it has drafted a process improvement plan that 

includes improvement activities for all of the 13 key process areas included 

in both software and software acquisition CMMs—including the critical 

management processes required to reach CMM level 2 (listed above). 

According to the plan, the bureau will define activities for each key process 

area, define methods, policies, and procedures, obtain tools to support and 

16Land Management Systems: Major Software Development Does Not Meet BLM’s Business 

Needs (GAO/T-AIMD-99-102, March 4, 1999).

17Capability Maturity ModelSM is the service trademark of Carnegie Mellon University, and 

CMM® is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

18Level 2 organizations are defined as having basic project management processes to track 

cost, schedule, and functionality, with the necessary process discipline in place to repeat 

earlier successes on projects with similar applications.
Page 16 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

automate the activities in each key process area, and provide training. BLM 

plans to complete these efforts in February 2002. The plan indicates that 

about 6 months will be devoted to using the improved processes and 

demonstrating the attainment of CMM level 2 capabilities.

BLM is also sponsoring a 6-week project-management training program to 

further strengthen its system acquisition capabilities. The training program 

consists of six courses, including software risk management, software 

quality management, and project scheduling and cost control. Thirty-one 

BLM staff completed the program in calendar year 2000, and BLM’s CIO 

anticipates that many more BLM staff, including some not in the IT 

organization, will complete this training in 2001. BLM’s CIO also told us that 

the bureau is committed to training as many BLM staff as necessary to 

support the successful management of new projects throughout the agency.

An Integrated Plan and 

Schedule Are Being 

Developed for BLM’s 

Investment 

Management and 

Systems Acquisition 

Improvement Projects

To help ensure that BLM’s improvement actions will succeed, we 

recommended that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to develop a 

comprehensive and integrated information technology investment 

management program by integrating the bureau’s projects to strengthen its 

investment management and systems acquisition processes and practices. 

We also recommended that BLM establish an overall project plan, schedule, 

and milestones for these actions. We have developed a methodology and 

guidance, called Information Technology Investment Management (ITIM), 

to assist agencies in analyzing IT investment management processes and 

determining the maturity of those processes.19 ITIM is structured using a 

maturity framework similar to SEI’s CMM, and includes a roadmap that 

agencies can use for improving their IT investment management processes.

To address our recommendations, the bureau is using a contractor to assist 

in integrating its investment management improvement projects and has 

drafted an IRM process improvement plan. The draft plan, issued on 

October 10, 2000, is intended to be the primary planning document for 

BLM’s IRM process improvement effort and is considered by the bureau to 

be a document that will be developed incrementally. The plan contains 

strategic goals for BLM’s process improvement effort, describes the 

organizations responsible for carrying out the effort, contains an 

improvement agenda with guiding principles and a process improvement 

19Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and 

Improving Process Maturity, Exposure Draft, Version 1 (GAO/AIMD-10.1.23, May 2000).
Page 17 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

roadmap, discusses risks and BLM’s planned responses, and shows highlevel criteria for the success of the effort. The plan focuses on eight 

improvement areas, including BLM’s information technology architecture, 

investment management, project management, and data management.

However, the draft plan does not yet integrate these individual projects and 

identify the interdependencies among the planned improvement areas. For 

example, BLM’s plans to improve its information technology architecture 

and its data management are described separately. Although these efforts 

are dependent upon each other, the draft plan does not address the 

relationships and management of the interdependencies between the two 

improvement efforts. As a result, BLM does not yet have a complete plan 

that shows the relationships and interdependencies of the projects aimed 

at strengthening its IRM program.

BLM’s draft process improvement plan also contains a high-level schedule 

with milestones for completing its improvement work. The plan outlines 

four major objectives to be accomplished within 18 months: (1) defining an 

information technology architecture, (2) establishing stable investment 

management processes and practices to attain level 2 of our ITIM 

framework, (3) establishing project management and software acquisition 

best practices to attain CMM level 2, and (4) establishing policies and 

procedures to identify business-critical data sets, measure and improve 

data quality, reduce data duplication, and promote reuse of commonly used 

data. 

However, the schedule does not contain the detailed tasks and 

interdependencies necessary to ensure that all of BLM’s planned process 

improvement work could be completed on schedule. For example, the 

schedule includes a task to “define policies and procedures” to help 

improve the bureau’s investment management processes. But the schedule 

does not include any of the lower level tasks that would identify exactly 

which policies and procedures would be defined, or the time and resources 

necessary to carry out the tasks. In addition, the schedule does not include 

interdependencies between this task and other related tasks such as 

“defining project management policies and procedures” or “piloting 

improved processes.” These details and interdependencies are necessary to 

establish milestones and a critical path to help ensure a reliable schedule. 

According to BLM’s CIO, the bureau will continue its planning efforts and 

further define all of its improvement projects and integrate them.
Page 18 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

System Acquisition Is 

Beginning Before 

Investment 

Management Processes 

and Practices Are 

Strengthened

Because of the IT investment management and systems acquisition 

problems identified during the ALMRS/Modernization, we recommended 

that BLM not undertake any sizable systems acquisition or development 

efforts until the assessments we recommended were completed and 

corrective actions taken.

At the time of our February 2000 report, BLM had temporarily suspended 

all major systems acquisition and development projects. However, the 

bureau continued work on several ongoing systems maintenance projects 

as well as planning for a major system called the National Integrated Land 

System (NILS). NILS is a joint project with the United States Forest Service 

to develop a common data model and tools in a geographic information 

system environment for managing cadastral20 and land record data. NILS 

consists of four modules called GeoCommunicator, Survey Management, 

Measurement Management, and Parcel Management21 and is estimated to 

cost about $16.7 million through project completion. Each module is being 

planned as a separate project. We reported in February 2000 that, according 

to BLM’s CIO, planning for NILS would continue but development would 

not begin until after the bureau architecture was sufficiently complete and 

its business needs documented.

Since that time, BLM has completed the initial bureau architecture and 

issued an interim architectural policy for bureauwide IT projects which is 

intended to guide and constrain new project development until 

development and implementation of the bureau architecture is sufficiently 

complete. In addition, BLM has begun work on the first of the four NILS 

modules—GeoCommunicator—estimated to cost about $1.9 million.22 BLM 

plans to use GeoCommunicator to establish an Internet web site using its 

current information systems to facilitate data sharing and collaborative 

work among BLM staff.

20Cadastral data document the legal boundaries, ownership, extent, and value of real 

property. 

21Survey Management will consist of data collection software packages that will support the 

capture of land survey data directly into a geographic information system database format; 

Measurement Management will allow users to create a control network for survey data 

including the Public Land Survey System with the use of online measurement adjustment 

programs; Parcel Management will provide a process for managing land records and data 

stored in a database model.

22On January 29, 2001, the NILS project manager informed us that BLM is updating the cost 

estimate and expects the cost of this module to be significantly reduced. 
Page 19 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Although the GeoCommunicator project is a small part of the NILS effort, 

we determined whether sufficient controls are in place to properly guide 

and manage the project. BLM’s initial bureau architecture and interim 

policy provide adequate architectural guidance for the NILS 

GeoCommunicator module. However, the bureau’s investment 

management processes are not yet sufficient to properly track and assess 

the progress of the GeoCommunicator project. For example, the bureau is 

only now beginning to identify and implement the investment processes 

and criteria necessary to control approved projects. By moving forward 

with development of the GeoCommunicator module before strengthening 

its investment management processes and practices, the bureau is 

increasing the risk that the project may not adequately meet its needs or be 

delivered as planned.

In addition, BLM has not assessed the potential risk and impact of the 

workload that GeoCommunicator may have on BLM’s current computing 

environment. GeoCommunicator users will be able to view, download, and 

store land data in graphic formats, which would necessitate BLM having 

adequate computing capacity to support new hardware and 

communications requirements resulting from new uses of BLM land data. 

In addition, GeoCommunicator will facilitate the downloading of land 

record data from external sources into BLM’s databases. BLM users could 

then combine external data with BLM’s own data, with few controls over 

the use or quality of external data, and without timeliness standards for the 

external data. Without an understanding of the impact of 

GeoCommunicator on BLM’s systems and data, BLM has no assurance that 

the project will produce expected results and meet the bureau’s needs.

Conclusions BLM continues taking corrective actions to implement the 

recommendations we made in 1999 and 2000. While these actions are not 

yet complete, the changes made thus far should help to improve the 

acquisition and management of IT investments. The bureau has begun to 

improve the selection and management of its IT investments and develop 

more mature systems development and acquisition capabilities. The bureau 

is also developing a plan and schedule to integrate its improvement actions, 

developing plans and actions to properly control ongoing and evaluate 

completed IT projects, and establishing an enterprise architecture. 

However, more needs to be done to fully address our recommendations. 

BLM recognizes this and said it will continue to work diligently on these 

areas.
Page 20 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

BLM has also taken steps to acquire a component of a major information 

system before completing improvement actions to its investment control 

processes. Without sufficient management controls in place, BLM is 

increasing the risk that this new system effort will fail to meet the bureau’s 

needs or will not be delivered as planned.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to take the 

following actions to help mitigate risks associated with moving forward 

with the GeoCommunicator acquisition:

• Adopt procedures to ensure proper management and control over the 

GeoCommunicator project. The procedures should include (1) 

consistent project monitoring by senior managers to ensure that cost 

and schedule are being controlled, benefits are being accomplished, 

risks are being managed, and strategic bureau needs are being met and 

(2) comparison of interim results against project estimates through each 

stage to ensure that the project is progressing as expected and to 

indicate when actions should be taken as problems arise, including 

modifying, canceling, continuing, or accelerating the project.

• Determine the additional workload and other impacts that 

implementing the GeoCommunicator module will have on BLM’s 

current computing environment. This assessment should be completed 

as quickly as possible and evaluated by the ITIB immediately upon its 

completion.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, the Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Land and Minerals Management stated that the Department of the Interior 

concurs with our findings and recommendations. The department reported 

that BLM has been endeavoring to improve IT management, recognizes that 

there are areas that need further improvement, and will continue to work 

diligently in those areas. The key corrective actions include (1) filling 

several important positions in the next 6 months, (2) continuing the efforts 

to complete its IT investment management processes, (3) instituting a 

review of NILS to more accurately identify the risks, mitigation measures, 

and advisability of continuing with the projects as currently planned, and 

(4) applying new control and assessment criteria to the GeoCommunicator 

project. The department’s comments are reprinted in their entirety as 

appendix II.
Page 21 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Conrad Burns, Chairman, 

and Senator Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior 

and Related Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations. We are also 

sending copies of this report to Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of 

Management and Budget; Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior; and 

Nina Rose Hatfield, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management. Copies 

will also be made available to others upon request and will be available on 

our home page at http://www.gao.gov.

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6240, or David G. Gill, Assistant Director, at 

(202) 512-6250. We can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and 

gilld@gao.gov, respectively. Major contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix III.

Linda D. Koontz

Director, Information Management Issues
Page 22 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

As requested by the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, our objectives 

were to determine whether BLM (1) has adequately assessed the usability 

of the ALMRS IOC software and other alternatives to meet its business 

needs, (2) has adequately strengthened its investment management 

practices, (3) is using sound systems acquisition processes, (4) has 

integrated all of its investment management and systems acquisition 

improvement projects and developed an overall plan and schedule for 

completing this integrated work, and (5) is planning to undertake any 

sizable systems acquisition or development efforts prior to strengthening 

its information technology program.

To meet our first objective, we reviewed BLM’s technical and functional 

analysis of ALMRS IOC as well as supporting documentation and reports. 

We also interviewed bureau officials to determine BLM’s plans to conduct 

further analyses.

To meet our second objective, we reviewed BLM’s draft IT management 

plans, including its capital asset and strategic IRM plans, and compared the 

plans to OMB’s and our guidance for developing such plans. To assess the 

composition and actions of BLM’s ITIB, we compared the board’s charter to 

our investment management guidance, attended ITIB meetings at BLM, and 

reviewed the results of the ITIB meetings to determine the extent to which 

BLM has implemented a sound investment management process. We also 

reviewed BLM’s draft investment management process document and 

compared the bureau’s draft process to our information technology 

investment management guidance. We reviewed the bureau’s IRM 

reorganization and staffing assessment, and compared it with the ClingerCohen Act’s requirement that agency CIOs assess the extent to which 

personnel meet the agencies’ organizational IRM requirements. To assess 

BLM’s architecture, we analyzed the bureau’s architectural models and 

data, and the methodology used to develop the architecture, and compared 

them to OMB’s guidance for developing and documenting enterprise 

architectures. We interviewed BLM officials, including the CIO and Deputy 

CIO, acting lead architect, and NILS project manager to identify BLM’s 

planned and ongoing actions to strengthen its investment management 

processes.

To address our third objective, we analyzed BLM’s plan to strengthen its 

investment management capabilities and compared the plan to the SEI’s 

Software and Software Acquisition CMM criteria. We also interviewed 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

bureau officials to determine what actions BLM has taken and plans to take 

to strengthen its systems acquisition capabilities.

To address our fourth objective, we analyzed BLM’s integrated plan and 

schedule for managing all of its investment management and systems 

acquisition improvement projects to determine whether the plan fully 

integrated these projects and to assess the reliability of the schedule. We 

also interviewed bureau officials to determine BLM’s plans for further 

integrating these projects and establishing a reliable project schedule.

To address our final objective, we analyzed NILS and GeoCommunicator 

project plans and documents, and interviewed project and contractor 

officials. We also compared the project’s progress to BLM’s progress in 

developing and implementing IT investment management controls to 

determine whether the current controls are sufficient to properly track and 

control the GeoCommunicator project.

We performed our work at BLM and Department of the Interior 

headquarters in Washington, D.C., and BLM’s National Information 

Resources Management Center headquarters in Denver. We performed our 

work from February 2000 through December 2000 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Page 24 GAO-01-05 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Appendix II

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior

Page 25 GAO-01-05 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior

Page 26 GAO-01-05 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements
Page 27 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact David G. Gill, (202) 512-6250

Acknowledgments In addition to the individual named above, Elizabeth A. Roach, 

E. Randolph Tekeley, and Eric D. Winter made key contributions to this 

report.
Page 28 GAO-01-282 BLM’s Information Technology Improvements

Related GAO Products

Land Management Systems: Status of BLM’s Actions to Improve 

Information Technology Management (GAO/AIMD-00-67, 

February 24, 2000).

Land Management Systems: Major Software Development Does Not Meet 

BLM’s Business Needs (GAO/AIMD-99-135, April 30, 1999).

Land Management Systems: Major Software Development Does Not Meet 

BLM’s Business Needs (GAO/T-AIMD-99-102, March 4, 1999).

Land Management Systems: Actions Needed in Completing the Automated 

Land and Mineral Record System Development (GAO/AIMD-98-107, 

May 15, 1998).

Land Management Systems: Information on BLM’s Automated Land and 

Mineral Record System Release 2 Project (GAO/AIMD-97-109R, 

June 6, 1997).

Land Management Systems: BLM Faces Risks in Completing the 

Automated Land and Mineral Record System (GAO/AIMD-97-42, 

March 19, 1997).

Land Management Systems: Progress and Risks in Developing BLM’s Land 

and Mineral Record System (GAO/AIMD-95-180, August 31, 1995).

(511838) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00